nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

€75,000 settlement over faulty fuel pump incident

ayux4rj6zql2ph

This really is a banana republic.

The level of these awards seriously needs looking at. Clearly the children's mother thought every little helps.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1219/1018124-tesco-settlement/

Two Dublin children, who were sprayed with petrol and fumes at a faulty fuel pump when they were aged four years and 21 months respectively, have been awarded almost €75,000 damages against Tesco Ireland Limited.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peter Denham

Meh, Tesco knew there was a fault and ignored it. More fool them.

sk8erboii

Mike Curved Dove wrote: »

This really is a banana republic.

The level of these awards seriously needs looking at. Clearly the children's mother thought every little helps.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1219/1018124-tesco-settlement/

Yeah that poor 4 billion euro company that ignored health and safety!

Shame on those little kids for being in danger!

DontThankMe

100% Agree with the above poster

from the article:

"The court heard the Tesco service station concerned had been aware of a potential fault in the particular pump for some time but had not closed it off to the public."

They knew about the fault and did nothing about it they only have themselves to blame.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

I don't condone Tesco ignoring the fault, rather the size of the payout. Tesco might learn to keep on top of things after this now, €75k plus legal costs isn't a cheap day out.

Guy:Incognito

The usual stuff on the end though. How does a sleeping child of less than 2 get shock and anxiety from being splashed with petrol?

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The usual stuff on the end though. How does a sleeping child of less than 2 get shock and anxiety from being splashed with petrol?

Can it be proven to have a long term effect regardless of age? or was a payout the cheapest way?

sk8erboii

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The usual stuff on the end though. How does a sleeping child of less than 2 get shock and anxiety from being splashed with petrol?

Probably from the benzene and carbon monoxide? Petrol is known to cause central nervous system f*ckery on grown adults

sk8erboii

Mike Curved Dove wrote: »

Can it be proven to have a long term affect regardless of age? or was a payout the cheapest way?

Payout is decided by the judge. Its awarding to the plaintiff AND as punishment for tesco.

Well deserved tbqhfam

No need to be a corporate bootlicker. A company made a greivous error now theyre paying for it.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

sk8erboii wrote: »

Probably from the benzene and carbon monoxide? Petrol is known to cause central nervous system f*ckery on grown adults

Aye, i think the words i've heard around here is 'buzzin petrol'

ayux4rj6zql2ph

sk8erboii wrote: »

Payout is decided by the judge. Its awarding to the plaintiff AND as punishment for tesco.

Well deserved tbqhfam

No need to be a corporate bootlicker. A company made a greivous error now theyre paying for it.

Option is there to appeal it, wonder will they

sk8erboii

Mike Curved Dove wrote: »

Option is there to appeal it, wonder will they

why would they? dragging a family into a drawn out court battle will be infinitely more harmful to tescos image than 75,000

ayux4rj6zql2ph

sk8erboii wrote: »

why would they? dragging a family into a drawn out court battle will be infinitely more harmful to tescos image than 75,000

Stranger thing have happened. Tesco management can be arrogant at the best of times.

Castlekeeper

sk8erboii wrote: »

Payout is decided by the judge. Its awarding to the plaintiff AND as punishment for tesco.

Well deserved tbqhfam

No need to be a corporate bootlicker. A company made a greivous error now theyre paying for it.

I don't think Tesco will end up paying for it, probably more likely their insurance will and if so, that means we all will. That's the problem with these ridiculously high payouts, judges award plenty for all the legals, and the costs of insurance are passed on to everyone, let the compo party continue.
New clothes, medical and counselling expenses and some pocket money would do fine.

topper75

Not the first time I've noted the name Groarke in these type of stories. Sadly it won't be the last either.

A collection of the cases he hears with court artist illustrations would make a nice coffee table book, a delightful stocking filler for the legal eagles in your life.

gandalf

sk8erboii wrote: »

why would they? dragging a family into a drawn out court battle will be infinitely more harmful to tescos image than 75,000

If it was Dunnes it would be appealed to the hilt!

I got diesel in the car the other day and a bit dribbled on my hand I wonder can I get some readies off Applegreen?

ohnonotgmail

I often wonder if people actually read the article before posting about it. The judge did not decide the amount of compensation. The judge approved a settlement put forward by Tesco.

AlmightyCushion

Mike Curved Dove wrote: »

I don't condone Tesco ignoring the fault, rather the size of the payout. Tesco might learn to keep on top of things after this now, €75k plus legal costs isn't a cheap day out.

Usually if the issue has been highlighted before to the company and they ignore it, the payout is a lot higher as punishment for ignoring the warning.

lawred2

Mike Curved Dove wrote: »

This really is a banana republic.

The level of these awards seriously needs looking at. Clearly the children's mother thought every little helps.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1219/1018124-tesco-settlement/

well maybe it's a punishment for Tesco for ignoring a clear health and safety breach rather than a reward for the claimants

Of all the egregiously unjustifiable awards handed out by judges - this is possibly one of the least offensive cases

antodeco

I may have missed it in the article (read it twice!) But how did it actually happen?

I'm trying to figure out what the fault was and also how 2 children got splashed? I'm assuming wide open window and that's how they got sprayed?

badboyblast

Country is a disgrace with a claim culture, therapy sessions my H***, I fee sorry for people in business in this country, embarrassing

xckjoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I often wonder if people actually read the article before posting about it. The judge did not decide the amount of compensation. The judge approved a settlement put forward by Tesco.

Most people won't even read your post explaining the it. Would only waste time they could be spending being outraged :pac:

ohnonotgmail

xckjoo wrote: »

Most people won't even read your post explaining the it. Would only waste time they could be spending being outraged :pac:

I suppose people do lead very busy lives these days. No time for informing oneself or such like.

sbsquarepants

Mike Curved Dove wrote: »

This really is a banana republic.

The level of these awards seriously needs looking at. Clearly the children's mother thought every little helps.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/1219/1018124-tesco-settlement/

Usually I'm shocked at these crazy pay out stories, but in this case I think Tesco actually got away lightly.
They wilfully ignored a faulty petrol pump resulting in 2 young kids being sprayed with petrol FFS - that could well have been a far nastier incident and they deserved to be penalised for it.

begbysback

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I often wonder if people actually read the article before posting about it. The judge did not decide the amount of compensation. The judge approved a settlement put forward by Tesco.

How would it end up in court then? Would this not be a prior agreement to prevent going to court?

nthclare

Kids will probably have skin damage for a While then if it soaked in its worse, petrol on delicate skin can cause the skin to crack etc.

If they ignored the problem, it's 100% negligence.

No ifs or buts about it.

I'd say the Judge said "this will teach them for not following health and safety procedures.

And rightly so, tesco aren't exactly lacking money.

chalkitdown1

I love a good thread backfire!

Good on the family for getting that much out of them for a dangerous issue Tesco refused to fix.

ohnonotgmail

begbysback wrote: »

How would it end up in court then? Would this not be a prior agreement to prevent going to court?

Any settlement in a case taken on behalf of a child has to be approved by a judge.

mconigol

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I often wonder if people actually read the article before posting about it. The judge did not decide the amount of compensation. The judge approved a settlement put forward by Tesco.

The judge doesn't have to approve it

ohnonotgmail

mconigol wrote: »

The judge doesn't have to approve it

They don't, you are right, but in the case of a settlement being offered their remit is not to decide who is in the right but to act in the best interests of the child. From my reading that is exactly what they have done.